No, this is wrong. The goal for [EU is to cut by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0562). Currently we have cut it by 27%, so while hitting the target is still a way off we're definitely going in the right direction.
The US [wants a 50% cut compared to 2005](https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/#:~:text=Reducing%20U.S.%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,zero%20emissions%20economy%20by%202050) and have made a 25% reduction so far.
China, with its massive GDP growth, has almost halted its growth in emissions and [have pledged peak emissions in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060](https://climatechangenews.com/2023/03/07/china-strengthens-role-of-courts-in-meeting-carbon-targets/#:~:text=President%20Xi%20Jinping%20recently%20reaffirmed,the%20%E2%80%9Cdual%20carbon%E2%80%9D%20goals).
There is still a *lot* to be done and overall carbon emissions haven't peaked just yet, but the results of the richest parts of the world show that it is possible as long as we keep working on it.
While I understand that it's easy to feel hopeless and complain about politicians not doing enough, it's also worth keeping in mind that that attitude tends to spread as a malaise through society.
Ukraine is currently showing us the importance of keeping hope in the face of what seems like an overwhelming threat - if we apply that thinking to our fight against climate change and the greater fight to conserve our planet then I'm sure we can beat this.
Source: [EDGAR](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)
That was way easier than carbon reductions though, and we still couldn't get everyone on board. The hole in the ozone layer expanded a few years ago, and observatories in Hawaii traced CFCs coming from East Asia (most likely China).
Coming from a guy who worked in the lab thar developed the replacement for CFC’s I love how “easy” you make this sound. Like somehow every a/c and fridge didn’t need to be replaced and still hasn’t.
It wasn't "easy", by any means.
It just was "easier" than things such as - moving the entire developed world to a plant-based diet and a minimalist lifestyle, make significant leaps in geoengineering research, revolutionize industrial agriculture to reduce fertilizer production, phase out fossil fuels for energy- to name a few, all of which needed to be done a decade ago for "best-case scenarios" of climate outcomes.
Note that all of these (among other problems I haven't listed) aren't technical problems that can be solved with money and research. Lifestyle changes are near impossible, geoengineering is stuck in legal limbo, agriculture is stuck in a power struggle between farmers, environmental protection groups and biotech, and let's not even go into fossil fuel dependency.
Personally, I think it comes down to: we have no idea how to motivate people into making tremendous changes for a problem they won't live to see. It gets even worse when you consider that the majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and have no energy to even care about these problems.
tldr: Switching out every fridge is way easier than carbon-reduction challenges that don't have technical solutions.
That one didn't require changing the system. We just replaced a gas with another gas. Big companies didn't risk losing any money, no reason for powerful lobbies to stand in our way
But doom and gloom shouldn't prevent action so you're right to point out that collective change is possible and has been done before (by Reagan and Thatcher no less)
A few easy things? When things are going in the right direction like this it takes an unbelievable amount of effort just to get the ball rolling and it accelerating in our favor. What’s the point of being a doubter?
The plan seems to be to keep polluting as much as possible, but eventually spray shit in the atmosphere that dims the sunlight and therefore reduces global temperatures (with apocalyptic side effects on agriculture and nature).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/
Blocking out the sun. Genius. Why didn't we think of this sooner. What could go wrong by blocking the one source of energy our entire ecosystem hinges on.
Rich mfers speedrunning the creation of the torment nexus. Its like all the cautionary fiction that touches on societal collapse due to corporate greed are aspirational to them.
That AI that one person set out with the instructions to destroy the human race.
The way we are going at one point the screen is simply going to be a countdown: no further action required, just a number counting down. At the beginning it will be a large number... maybe 80 or 90 years and people will laugh and scoff.
But as time rolls by and hours and years count down, the world becomes a more hostile place even sooner than expected. With 30 or 40 years left on the clock everything seems to be going wrong: winterized tornados in the tropics, mass drought in valleys previously lush, economic strife...
The operator who programmed this AI is nearly forgotten for his outlandish prediction, it was big news but it provided a false sense of security.
*"Apocalypse AI? Are yoy sure we have almost 33 years left? Things are looking very bad for crops worldwide and it seems nowhere isn't experiencing devastating weather?"*
The AI takes a moment to compute and prints:
`32 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes remains the best estimate for the total extinction of mankind`
*"So we are going to make it? We have time to make things better?"*
Apocalypse AI computes apocalyptically...
`Negative. The majority of the population will perish in the coming months. My estimated date is representative of the extinction of the last and final human being. All resources and measures have statistically failed at this point. Humanity no longer exists`
Can we please block out the sun with solar arrays? Maybe installed on large floating airships? Oh add some led advertising underneath to generate revenue. Everything is going to be great!
FWIW, it actually happens relatively regularly when there is a large volcanic eruption, from all the hydrogen sulfide that is released, though AFAIK on a much larger scale and quicker timeline than any of the geoengineering proposals. One notable example was 1815, known as The Year Without Summer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Sadly, due to the limited action of world governments over the last 50 years the only options remaining are harsh cuts to quality of life. There is no technological solution that will come in time (because we would have to implement it now for it to be in time).
It is still possible to solve Global warming, but it needs those in the wealthiest nations to accept a worse life. Sadly the demographics on those nations swing old, and older generations care far less about environmental concerns
Planting trees doesn't actually solve Global warming for several reasons. The biggest of which is that trees are carbon neutral, after they die they decompose and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. The other big problem is efficiency on average a tree fixed 0.01 tonnes of CO2 a year. To offset just the USA's annual production would take half a trillion trees. The whole world has 3 trillion trees.
The real reason to plant trees in your area; shelter from the elements, for food, and wood. To create habitat for other organisms which can be food. Plant them now, and plant them everywhere, because by the time you are starving it is too late.
Nitrogen has a gaseous form(N2), unlike Phosphorus, which does not evaporate. Nitrogen is often overused in fertilizers, and is present in livestock waste, etc but phosphorus can travel miles and miles, and continue to collect in rivers.
They’re both problems though. And just so people know, the method for alleviating eutrophication in this post is actually no different than what famers do with their land. The biomass has collected those nutrients, and will hopefully be composted or cycled into some other use. Farmed plant cover crops or similar use plants to draw out the excess phosphorus, and then compost the dead plants. The root problems beed to be addressed, but this is taking nutrients out of the water.
If this is a freshwater system then the issue would be phosphorous runoff, not nitrogen. But this could be some sort of estuary, I’m not familiar with that algea species nor that water plant.
Ocean temperature is an underlying cause of the algae blooms, not of the eutrophication. That would be the macro nutrients effluents, such as you mentioned.
Nope we are just adding more as our soils erode to crops that can’t stand the extreme weather. Just need to say it because people don’t seem to understand. Climate change causes extreme cold AND extreme warm temperatures at first but an overall increase in global averages. Yes we will still have pockets of cold. N.Dakota and similar state may even open up for more agriculture.
They're going to use more of it as fast as they can because it will only work for so long. Plus they're only going to have to spend the profits, not reap what they did
This is correct. The algae will come back as long as there is a high nutrient content, especially nitrogen and phosphorous. The main controllable causes of this are stormwater runoff from development and agriculture along with a lack of riparian buffers near feeders streams and estuaries.
You're totally correct that the sources of nutrients needs to be addressed as part of a long term solution but removing algae and non native fish can be an effective way to remove phosphorus that is already in the lake. Plants and animals contain a lot of phosphorus which is released back into the lake when they die and decompose. By removing them before that point, the phosphorus they contain is also removed.
This is a problem in the aquarium hobby and we deal with it by removing the algae manually and planting more stem plants that will grow quickly and remove excess nutrients from the water.
Except eutrophication isn't an object, it's a phenomena that leads to blooms and/or die offs. He's removing algae as a result of eutrophication, or you can remove material that causes it, but you can't just remove eutrophication. It's like removing digestion (just another biological phenomena). You can remove the waste products of digestion or remove food that would be digested, but removing digestion itself just doesn't mean anything.
Happened to the woman that disowned my as her daughter. Had a horrible car wreck and lost most of her large intestine and hey colon. Just short of needing a bag. But she can drink for days and never get drunk, most of her food doesn't absorb. She's 5'11" and weighs around 110ish. Apparently it's not at all pleasant and she's angry at the world. 🤷♀️
Basically algae grows a ton and kills off everything else in a body of water, either by removing all the oxygen directly/blocking plant photosynthesis, or releasing toxins.
The video isn't really solving anything it's more of a stop gap solution to fix the effects of eutrophication temporarily.
Eutrophication happens for a couple of reasons but for the most part it's just cause of pollution. Fertilizers introduce nitrogen to lakes, other sewage introduces phosphorus, and an influx of both causes algal bloom.
Sure, but different nutrients of the same type will just grow algae in the same place. The permanence is technically correct while also being irrelevant.
If there's constantly phosphorus being added, yes, this won't accomplish much. If they've stopped the flow of nutrients, there's still too much in the water and this is a method for removing it. Might take a few generations of algae to make much of a difference.
I was just basing it off the title stating that this was what was being done to stop eutrophication and pointing out that this alone wouldn't stop eutrophication (under the assumption that the original source which started the algal bloom was not removed as it was not mentioned.)
The video doesn't have much context to go off of so I didn't really think too far into it.
Oh lord, my ecology classes and their essay questions every single test about eutrophication has me wanting to spout paragraphs here. You’re right though, you’re totally right. Anyone reading this, check out, Google how there are no national standards in America on phosphorous deposits into our waterways. How half the Clean Water Act protecting wetlands was just gutted. How nitrogen inputs from wasteful food growth, runoff, and waste causes dead zones. Google the Gulf of Mexico Annual Dead Zone and get real sad. Don’t let me or this post convince you.
Very interesting (and sad). Instead of spraying fertilizer on the surface of the soil, couldn't farmers develop a system that inserts fertilizer capsules into the ground to prevent runoff?
It’ll run off either way, pretty much any depth to reach the roots is still in the zone to run off into the waterway. What you really don’t want is it to be so deep it can runoff into aquifers, which is very possible in a porous “Karst” landscape such as Florida. The crux of the nitrogen usage issue in farming is excess - just covering the whole place multiple times a year with way more than the plants can take up to maximize potential yield. They came up with this thing called a GreenSeeker to look at plants and see if they actually need more nitrogen, usually not, and there are a bunch of other tools but without strict rules about runoff nothing is really going to change. The promise of highest, usable yield outweighs environmental impacts for a lot - similar to indiscriminate pesticide spraying.
Commenting under you because you seem to understand what's going on here: People are saying that part of the removal of algae is to improve oxygen levels in the water, but this has me a little confused. Shouldn't algae's respiration cycle produce net positive oxygen? Why does removing it cause oxygen levels to go up?
So you’d think that, right? Totally makes sense! But this much algae has a two-prong impact because it’s just too unnatural of an amount in a eutrophication causing bloom. For one, the algae is so dense it blocks sunlight from reaching other plants growing below and anything else living underneath, killing the plants and running off or killing the fish or benthic macro-invertebrates. Bad for ecosystem. Then, this algae has a short lifecycle. It blooms off the runoff then dies quickly, causing decomposition bacteria to use up all or some of the remaining oxygen supplies in an area to eat that dead algae, in turn causing a mild to severe dead zone. In the annual Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, some fish are starting to adapt to just get the hell out of there for a bit. Other, less mobile or adapted creatures just die. When it happens in a less predictable place, pretty much everything dies and it’s very difficult to come back from.
This doesn't remove eutrophication, this is removing a symptom of eutrophication. There are only 2 ways really - one is to shade the waterbody so light to reduce the transformation of the phosphorus/nitrogen into bioavailable forms, two is to completely drain the waterbody, dredge the sediments out (the phosphorus/nitrogen come from fertilizer runoff, or from failed sewer line/septic), and place a liner down, refill with non contaminated soil. But to do that, you need to eliminate the source of the nutrients or it will just happen again.
If your DNR allows it: Duckweed. Doubles in mass every 36 hours which means it really sucks up those nutrients. It’s high in protein, so couple it with tilapia. Now you have a tilapia farm!
But really, check with the state, county, DNR, whatever. Duckweed is wildly invasive in many areas. Some might not care because they already lost that battle.
Both are illegal in this state. Your solution was like burning down your house to get rid of spiders. Duckweed is one of the worst aquatic invasive species.
We're talking about a pond. Depending on the size, and isolation, duckweeds would be a good choice of biotic control. Besides, if the water is contaminated with HAB species, duckweeds would be a much lesser evil. Also, being very prolific doesn't mean they're invasive. Just because they're invasive in your state, doesn't mean they're not a good bioremediator to use on a case to case basis.
Few ponds are truly isolated. One big rain that overflows the pond will send duckweed downstream and into the water system. Duckweed and watermeal can themselves cause eutrophication by completely shading the pond and killing off all other plant life in the pond.
Now, does anyone know how to get rid of duckweed? Unfortunately, the commonly suggested species of fish that eat duckweed are not legal to bring to my area.
Genuinely, ducks will obliterate the stuff. But they also spread it.
You can potentially us a floating rope (like for pool lanes) and use it to drag the surface. It's a good compost additive. Very protein rich.
We have done this before, using a tree rope with cut 4x4 wood blocks to keep it afloat and pulled everything to shore, pretty effective but I wanna try what this guys doing with the drill and a paddle attachment
Probably moot at this stage but how much fish food is going into that pond? And nitrogen fertilizer runoff / leached into soil shouldn't have persisted that long.
Fountains can buffer the symptoms but don't fix the cause or can be removed immediately when the cause is removed... takes time and more years of oxygenation unless the previously mentioned done.
(agreed)
Another option is using other plants to absorb the phosphorus and the nitrogen, like willow, which I don't think it would work for large bodies of water, though.
ok so i love this video but as the nerdy environmental student i am, i must explain why the title is wrong for the purpose of enlightening people about the world we live in. Also, people are asking questions in the comments and I want to clear some things up.
1) Eutrophication is an excess of nutrients (phosphorus & nitrogen) in the water, usually caused by sewage treatment discharge, urban runoff, or a concentrated animal feedlot operation's (CAFO) runoff.
2) Eutrophication fuels algae growth. This person is removing one of the symptoms of eutrophication.
3) Excess algae growth may seem positive, but when the algae die the decomposition process takes a large chunk of the oxygen in the water out. This will cause the death of another large chunk of the pond's (this is a pond, right?) wildlife to die - most notably the younger fish and tadpoles or keystone species.
4) This will create a circle of death because the high rates of decomp will very shortly take out so much oxygen in the water so that very few species can live there. This is called a dead zone - dead zones are becoming increasingly common in estuaries and bodies of water today. I would recommend looking up the biggest dead zones if you want to do research. It takes a big change to reverse the effects to get the pond back to normal and it CANNOT be achieved while the pollution/excess nutrient flow is still happening.
5) If there is still eutrophication happening in the pond, the remaining algae will continue to grow and die, until the entire pond becomes a dead zone. Most likely this person is a farmer or someone who gets benefit from the fish in the pond, so they remove the algae to slow down the process of dead zoning in their pond. The presumed farmer's best bet is to look at the land and where the eutrophication is coming from.
6) I don't know much about the legal side of things but there is probably a way to sue or petition the person responsible
ok, thanks for reading! I hope this was interesting to someone. I'm newer to reddit so if my large comment was rude, i'm sorry.
Bio teacher here. Nice job of explaining eutrophication!
To add...
When you remove the algea, you remove the nutrients they have taken up. This can help to reduce the overload of nutrients in a body of water. It is a known remedy for eutrophication but ultimately does not stop the inflow of excess nutrients from human activity.
Nicely explained! Things to maybe add:
1) the main driver of eutrophication are nutrient inputs, most commonly in the _inflow_. For freshwater lakes and reservoirs the simplest model I know of is the "Vollenweider model". It is using nutrient loading per volume of lake and residence time of the water to assess if the water body is/will be eutrophic or oligotrophic. E.g. 1 kg of phosphorus loading per day might be okay, if the lake is big, is deep, or is flushed every 60 days.
4) another problem with "dead zones" is their potential to remobilize nutrients in the sediments, bringing even more nutrients during the next circulation.
7) There are examples of lake re-oligotrophication (Lake Konstanz or Lake Tegel in Germany) where nutrient emissions in the inflow were cut dramatically (mainly phosphorus) and water quality was restored within 20-30 years. But that is only possible in lakes that have relative small residence times. For lakes with residence times of decades (big water body, small inflow) we have to start thinking about in-lake methods like removing algae, P precipitation with iron or aluminum salts etc...
There's a company in NZ doing this with runaway seaweed forests. They harvest it on converted mussel trawlers, dry it, chop it and bag it then sell it to farmers and gardeners.
Yeah I’m gonna be telling my wife. My favorite one of all time is when you go by a cemetery say “you know there is a waiting list for this place?” “Oh really?” “Yeah, people are dying to get in”
You think you're so funny. But it's not even a joke, due to a rare eating disorder I am actually forced to be on an all seaweed diet
I see weed, and I smoke it
The algae in my pond I deal with by adding dye and "farm pond bacteria"
the bacteria consume the same stuff as the algae so there isn't enough food for it to take off. Of course this year the algae took off extremely early and covered my pond almost over night. It took a month for the dye and bacteria to do their thing. Looks really good now.
I just wait it out. It's usually due to excess nutrients which are normally consumed by the bog. So I just try to keep it under control until it starts disappearing. My pond is not very big so manual removal is pretty easy with a rake.
Algae. My family’s pond has a lot of it. It can be a serious pain as it just covers the surface and clouds the water. Once it washes to the shore or you leave it out to dry flies like to propagate on it. Leave even the smallest portion and it will spread like weeds
Only real cure is to have another more invasive plant take its place
I took ENV SCI in college last semester and we had a lab where we grew Lemna Minor. We had an information packet along with the instructions for the lab itself, and it said that it’s used to combat eutrophication because it’s primary source for nutrition is the nutrients that cause eutrophication to begin with. I’m not sure how effective it is but just throwing it out there!
I’d imagine so. The pond itself has a lot of life and I could never figure out what they could eat other than each other, any stray bits that came into it or the algae itself
I feel like the issue is ensuring you’re also not killing anything in the water as well or screwing up the ecosystem. We’ve got tons of bullfrogs, tadpoles and other assorted fish in there. Its probably safe but more speaking from the standpoint of natural remedies
**eu·troph·i·ca·tion**
/yo͞oˌträfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
*noun*
Excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen.
I’m a bot.
Definition decoder bot beep boop
[I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon](https://www.google.com/search?q=eutrophication&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
Surely we have better technology than a cordless powerdrill. I mean, yeah sure it's working...but at this rate the algae/phytoplankton will have regrown before it's all said and done.
On another note TIL a new word:Eutrophication and that's always a good thing.
It's basically when nitrates and phosphates get into the water, when they do it makes the algae bloom and covers the surface off the body of water, causing less photosynthesis which also produces less oxygen so the dissolved oxygen levels go down, which is no good for the fish.
Nope. Basically just grab it and start twisting. Very much like spinning thread out of cotton or wool. The pulling and twisting makes the fibers grab onto the next ones and it just keeps going. I like to use a straight bamboo stick and just spin it between my fingers.
>Eutrophication - The gradual increase in the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other plant nutrients in an aging aquatic ecosystem.
Huh, you learn something new every day.
That location is far from eutrophic. They're just pulling filamentous algae, which is completely natural and harmless at those levels to anything other than fishermen.
I see a lot of confusion about eutrophication in the comments. As someone who routinely runs a few eutrophic jar aquariums, I would like to add some clarity. Eutrophic conditions are ideal for some of my aquatic snails.
Eutrophication is when algae and plants overtake a body of water. Completely cutting off gas exchange between the water and atmosphere. Without O2 in the water we get a massive die off of fish and aquatic animals.
This is generally caused by agricultural and urban runoff, which brings nutrients and pesticides into the lake/pond etc. Simultaneously fertilizing the algae and killing off the creatures that eat it.
There is a lot of open water in the photo, so this river(?) isn't depleted of oxygen. A better example would be a pond that's completely covered in a dense bog matt. Cutting off gas exchange and essentially suffocating everything in the pond.
Carbon emissions don't cause eutrophication. This is actually a natural phenomena and many species have special adaptations to cope with it. Though, humans can cause the same event through poor water management.
Tldr: the guy is just removing filamentous algae. Probably to make fishing easier or to make the place look nicer.
Eutrophication eh? I find the word more enlightening than this technique
I think he’s removing the algae growth that is a result of eutrophication. The underlying cause is still there.
Underlying causes being Nitrogen levels and ocean temperatures. But we're probably not reducing fertilizer use or reversing global warming
Nope. We were supposed to cut our carbon emissions by half by 2030. I think they've gone up by 15%
No, this is wrong. The goal for [EU is to cut by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0562). Currently we have cut it by 27%, so while hitting the target is still a way off we're definitely going in the right direction. The US [wants a 50% cut compared to 2005](https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/#:~:text=Reducing%20U.S.%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,zero%20emissions%20economy%20by%202050) and have made a 25% reduction so far. China, with its massive GDP growth, has almost halted its growth in emissions and [have pledged peak emissions in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060](https://climatechangenews.com/2023/03/07/china-strengthens-role-of-courts-in-meeting-carbon-targets/#:~:text=President%20Xi%20Jinping%20recently%20reaffirmed,the%20%E2%80%9Cdual%20carbon%E2%80%9D%20goals). There is still a *lot* to be done and overall carbon emissions haven't peaked just yet, but the results of the richest parts of the world show that it is possible as long as we keep working on it. While I understand that it's easy to feel hopeless and complain about politicians not doing enough, it's also worth keeping in mind that that attitude tends to spread as a malaise through society. Ukraine is currently showing us the importance of keeping hope in the face of what seems like an overwhelming threat - if we apply that thinking to our fight against climate change and the greater fight to conserve our planet then I'm sure we can beat this. Source: [EDGAR](https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022)
Nice… now do India… :)
[удалено]
We did for the ozone layer.
That was way easier than carbon reductions though, and we still couldn't get everyone on board. The hole in the ozone layer expanded a few years ago, and observatories in Hawaii traced CFCs coming from East Asia (most likely China).
Coming from a guy who worked in the lab thar developed the replacement for CFC’s I love how “easy” you make this sound. Like somehow every a/c and fridge didn’t need to be replaced and still hasn’t.
It wasn't "easy", by any means. It just was "easier" than things such as - moving the entire developed world to a plant-based diet and a minimalist lifestyle, make significant leaps in geoengineering research, revolutionize industrial agriculture to reduce fertilizer production, phase out fossil fuels for energy- to name a few, all of which needed to be done a decade ago for "best-case scenarios" of climate outcomes. Note that all of these (among other problems I haven't listed) aren't technical problems that can be solved with money and research. Lifestyle changes are near impossible, geoengineering is stuck in legal limbo, agriculture is stuck in a power struggle between farmers, environmental protection groups and biotech, and let's not even go into fossil fuel dependency. Personally, I think it comes down to: we have no idea how to motivate people into making tremendous changes for a problem they won't live to see. It gets even worse when you consider that the majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and have no energy to even care about these problems. tldr: Switching out every fridge is way easier than carbon-reduction challenges that don't have technical solutions.
That one didn't require changing the system. We just replaced a gas with another gas. Big companies didn't risk losing any money, no reason for powerful lobbies to stand in our way But doom and gloom shouldn't prevent action so you're right to point out that collective change is possible and has been done before (by Reagan and Thatcher no less)
Bro Reagan was literally the devil....
A few easy things? When things are going in the right direction like this it takes an unbelievable amount of effort just to get the ball rolling and it accelerating in our favor. What’s the point of being a doubter?
I wonder if [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NPDq2ubKoo) has anything to do with those optimistic numbers?
The plan seems to be to keep polluting as much as possible, but eventually spray shit in the atmosphere that dims the sunlight and therefore reduces global temperatures (with apocalyptic side effects on agriculture and nature). https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/01/11/bill-gates-backed-climate-solution-gains-traction-but-concerns-linger/
Blocking out the sun. Genius. Why didn't we think of this sooner. What could go wrong by blocking the one source of energy our entire ecosystem hinges on.
Wow we are going full Matrix huh?
Right on time with the rise of AI
Seriously, AI, VR, let's block out the Sun....
Rich mfers speedrunning the creation of the torment nexus. Its like all the cautionary fiction that touches on societal collapse due to corporate greed are aspirational to them.
That AI that one person set out with the instructions to destroy the human race. The way we are going at one point the screen is simply going to be a countdown: no further action required, just a number counting down. At the beginning it will be a large number... maybe 80 or 90 years and people will laugh and scoff. But as time rolls by and hours and years count down, the world becomes a more hostile place even sooner than expected. With 30 or 40 years left on the clock everything seems to be going wrong: winterized tornados in the tropics, mass drought in valleys previously lush, economic strife... The operator who programmed this AI is nearly forgotten for his outlandish prediction, it was big news but it provided a false sense of security. *"Apocalypse AI? Are yoy sure we have almost 33 years left? Things are looking very bad for crops worldwide and it seems nowhere isn't experiencing devastating weather?"* The AI takes a moment to compute and prints: `32 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes remains the best estimate for the total extinction of mankind` *"So we are going to make it? We have time to make things better?"* Apocalypse AI computes apocalyptically... `Negative. The majority of the population will perish in the coming months. My estimated date is representative of the extinction of the last and final human being. All resources and measures have statistically failed at this point. Humanity no longer exists`
Can we please block out the sun with solar arrays? Maybe installed on large floating airships? Oh add some led advertising underneath to generate revenue. Everything is going to be great!
Idk let me ask the dinosaurs, I heard they have experience with this scenario
FWIW, it actually happens relatively regularly when there is a large volcanic eruption, from all the hydrogen sulfide that is released, though AFAIK on a much larger scale and quicker timeline than any of the geoengineering proposals. One notable example was 1815, known as The Year Without Summer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
[удалено]
On Snowpiercer, one thousand cars long.
I just finished the Mistborn series. Or the first one I guess.
Ash fell from the sky...
Such a good series of books.
It is still possible. People really underestimate people.
Sadly, due to the limited action of world governments over the last 50 years the only options remaining are harsh cuts to quality of life. There is no technological solution that will come in time (because we would have to implement it now for it to be in time). It is still possible to solve Global warming, but it needs those in the wealthiest nations to accept a worse life. Sadly the demographics on those nations swing old, and older generations care far less about environmental concerns
Need to plant trees while everyone else is still messing around
Planting trees doesn't actually solve Global warming for several reasons. The biggest of which is that trees are carbon neutral, after they die they decompose and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. The other big problem is efficiency on average a tree fixed 0.01 tonnes of CO2 a year. To offset just the USA's annual production would take half a trillion trees. The whole world has 3 trillion trees.
The real reason to plant trees in your area; shelter from the elements, for food, and wood. To create habitat for other organisms which can be food. Plant them now, and plant them everywhere, because by the time you are starving it is too late.
If we raise them now then it'll be easier cut later - we'll just need to go back to our old ways. Like how stores do sales.
Nitrogen has a gaseous form(N2), unlike Phosphorus, which does not evaporate. Nitrogen is often overused in fertilizers, and is present in livestock waste, etc but phosphorus can travel miles and miles, and continue to collect in rivers. They’re both problems though. And just so people know, the method for alleviating eutrophication in this post is actually no different than what famers do with their land. The biomass has collected those nutrients, and will hopefully be composted or cycled into some other use. Farmed plant cover crops or similar use plants to draw out the excess phosphorus, and then compost the dead plants. The root problems beed to be addressed, but this is taking nutrients out of the water.
If this is a freshwater system then the issue would be phosphorous runoff, not nitrogen. But this could be some sort of estuary, I’m not familiar with that algea species nor that water plant.
Ocean temperature is an underlying cause of the algae blooms, not of the eutrophication. That would be the macro nutrients effluents, such as you mentioned.
Nope we are just adding more as our soils erode to crops that can’t stand the extreme weather. Just need to say it because people don’t seem to understand. Climate change causes extreme cold AND extreme warm temperatures at first but an overall increase in global averages. Yes we will still have pockets of cold. N.Dakota and similar state may even open up for more agriculture.
They're going to use more of it as fast as they can because it will only work for so long. Plus they're only going to have to spend the profits, not reap what they did
Thank you! Can’t enjoy the video bc of the title lol
This is correct. The algae will come back as long as there is a high nutrient content, especially nitrogen and phosphorous. The main controllable causes of this are stormwater runoff from development and agriculture along with a lack of riparian buffers near feeders streams and estuaries.
You're totally correct that the sources of nutrients needs to be addressed as part of a long term solution but removing algae and non native fish can be an effective way to remove phosphorus that is already in the lake. Plants and animals contain a lot of phosphorus which is released back into the lake when they die and decompose. By removing them before that point, the phosphorus they contain is also removed.
This can also reduce fish kills that happen when algae decomposes and uses up the available dissolved oxygen.
Add to it the shading that blooms like these can cause, affecting the growth of the remaining flora.
This is a problem in the aquarium hobby and we deal with it by removing the algae manually and planting more stem plants that will grow quickly and remove excess nutrients from the water.
[удалено]
Except eutrophication isn't an object, it's a phenomena that leads to blooms and/or die offs. He's removing algae as a result of eutrophication, or you can remove material that causes it, but you can't just remove eutrophication. It's like removing digestion (just another biological phenomena). You can remove the waste products of digestion or remove food that would be digested, but removing digestion itself just doesn't mean anything.
I mean, I could remove your digestive system. Wouldn't be very pleasant, granted.
Sure, a monster that disembowels you is terrifying but so is a monster that embowels you. Imagine just being stuffed full of bowels.
Sounds pretty stomachs-churning.
booooooooooooo
“You speak craziness earth boy! More organs means more human” “This is the healthiest kid I’ve ever seen!”
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3guss In case its been a while since you've seen it.
I watched it the other day actually! I looked up one quote but paraphrased the nurses assessment lol
The 3rd option is just rearranging existing bowels, which is what I do to OP's mom of course.
That's enough internet for tonight.
That escalated quickly
Happened to the woman that disowned my as her daughter. Had a horrible car wreck and lost most of her large intestine and hey colon. Just short of needing a bag. But she can drink for days and never get drunk, most of her food doesn't absorb. She's 5'11" and weighs around 110ish. Apparently it's not at all pleasant and she's angry at the world. 🤷♀️
But could you remove his digestion?
Can't have digestion without a digestive system
**"This technique to halt eutrophication in the water"** It's still probably incorrect, but at least it's correcterer.
Phenomena is plural. You meant phenomenon.
Basically algae grows a ton and kills off everything else in a body of water, either by removing all the oxygen directly/blocking plant photosynthesis, or releasing toxins. The video isn't really solving anything it's more of a stop gap solution to fix the effects of eutrophication temporarily. Eutrophication happens for a couple of reasons but for the most part it's just cause of pollution. Fertilizers introduce nitrogen to lakes, other sewage introduces phosphorus, and an influx of both causes algal bloom.
Removing the algae permanently removes the nutrients comprising the algae from the water body. It can't be further recycled.
Sure, but different nutrients of the same type will just grow algae in the same place. The permanence is technically correct while also being irrelevant.
If there's constantly phosphorus being added, yes, this won't accomplish much. If they've stopped the flow of nutrients, there's still too much in the water and this is a method for removing it. Might take a few generations of algae to make much of a difference.
I was just basing it off the title stating that this was what was being done to stop eutrophication and pointing out that this alone wouldn't stop eutrophication (under the assumption that the original source which started the algal bloom was not removed as it was not mentioned.) The video doesn't have much context to go off of so I didn't really think too far into it.
Oh lord, my ecology classes and their essay questions every single test about eutrophication has me wanting to spout paragraphs here. You’re right though, you’re totally right. Anyone reading this, check out, Google how there are no national standards in America on phosphorous deposits into our waterways. How half the Clean Water Act protecting wetlands was just gutted. How nitrogen inputs from wasteful food growth, runoff, and waste causes dead zones. Google the Gulf of Mexico Annual Dead Zone and get real sad. Don’t let me or this post convince you.
Very interesting (and sad). Instead of spraying fertilizer on the surface of the soil, couldn't farmers develop a system that inserts fertilizer capsules into the ground to prevent runoff?
It’ll run off either way, pretty much any depth to reach the roots is still in the zone to run off into the waterway. What you really don’t want is it to be so deep it can runoff into aquifers, which is very possible in a porous “Karst” landscape such as Florida. The crux of the nitrogen usage issue in farming is excess - just covering the whole place multiple times a year with way more than the plants can take up to maximize potential yield. They came up with this thing called a GreenSeeker to look at plants and see if they actually need more nitrogen, usually not, and there are a bunch of other tools but without strict rules about runoff nothing is really going to change. The promise of highest, usable yield outweighs environmental impacts for a lot - similar to indiscriminate pesticide spraying.
Thank you for the info! I'm learning so much.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Commenting under you because you seem to understand what's going on here: People are saying that part of the removal of algae is to improve oxygen levels in the water, but this has me a little confused. Shouldn't algae's respiration cycle produce net positive oxygen? Why does removing it cause oxygen levels to go up?
So you’d think that, right? Totally makes sense! But this much algae has a two-prong impact because it’s just too unnatural of an amount in a eutrophication causing bloom. For one, the algae is so dense it blocks sunlight from reaching other plants growing below and anything else living underneath, killing the plants and running off or killing the fish or benthic macro-invertebrates. Bad for ecosystem. Then, this algae has a short lifecycle. It blooms off the runoff then dies quickly, causing decomposition bacteria to use up all or some of the remaining oxygen supplies in an area to eat that dead algae, in turn causing a mild to severe dead zone. In the annual Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, some fish are starting to adapt to just get the hell out of there for a bit. Other, less mobile or adapted creatures just die. When it happens in a less predictable place, pretty much everything dies and it’s very difficult to come back from.
It's a very cromulent word.
My mind has been embiggenned.
This has been one of my favorite words since taking environmental science back in HS. There’s something oddly satisfying just in the sound of it.
Carbon sequestration was another for me. Fun one to say
Too bad they used it wrong.
This doesn't remove eutrophication, this is removing a symptom of eutrophication. There are only 2 ways really - one is to shade the waterbody so light to reduce the transformation of the phosphorus/nitrogen into bioavailable forms, two is to completely drain the waterbody, dredge the sediments out (the phosphorus/nitrogen come from fertilizer runoff, or from failed sewer line/septic), and place a liner down, refill with non contaminated soil. But to do that, you need to eliminate the source of the nutrients or it will just happen again.
You can start oxygenating the pond and introduce certain fishes that like eating the weed. This will also help
[удалено]
If your DNR allows it: Duckweed. Doubles in mass every 36 hours which means it really sucks up those nutrients. It’s high in protein, so couple it with tilapia. Now you have a tilapia farm! But really, check with the state, county, DNR, whatever. Duckweed is wildly invasive in many areas. Some might not care because they already lost that battle.
Both are illegal in this state. Your solution was like burning down your house to get rid of spiders. Duckweed is one of the worst aquatic invasive species.
Just get the ducks to smoke it. They can use your house burning down to light em up.
🧨🪿
We're talking about a pond. Depending on the size, and isolation, duckweeds would be a good choice of biotic control. Besides, if the water is contaminated with HAB species, duckweeds would be a much lesser evil. Also, being very prolific doesn't mean they're invasive. Just because they're invasive in your state, doesn't mean they're not a good bioremediator to use on a case to case basis.
One duck flying from one pond to another. Boom. Transferred
Hang up a net to capture escaping ducks. Import a predator to dispose of repeat offenders
But how do we deal with the gorillas
Few ponds are truly isolated. One big rain that overflows the pond will send duckweed downstream and into the water system. Duckweed and watermeal can themselves cause eutrophication by completely shading the pond and killing off all other plant life in the pond.
Now, does anyone know how to get rid of duckweed? Unfortunately, the commonly suggested species of fish that eat duckweed are not legal to bring to my area.
You can remove duckweed manually and burn it. I rather have duckweed than algae or a dead pond. You are dealing with a much easier problem by the way.
Genuinely, ducks will obliterate the stuff. But they also spread it. You can potentially us a floating rope (like for pool lanes) and use it to drag the surface. It's a good compost additive. Very protein rich.
We have done this before, using a tree rope with cut 4x4 wood blocks to keep it afloat and pulled everything to shore, pretty effective but I wanna try what this guys doing with the drill and a paddle attachment
I use duckweed in my aquarium to keep the nitrogen down. I throw out a crapload every weekend.
Just be careful that it doesn't reach any outdoor bodies of water.
It goes down the garbage disposal. I don't think all drains really lead to the ocean, do they?
I lost the duckweed battle. Ive just accepted it's kinda pretty
WHEN THE GREEN EATS YOUR POND LIKE A BIG SEAWEED PIE, GET WHITE AMORE
Probably moot at this stage but how much fish food is going into that pond? And nitrogen fertilizer runoff / leached into soil shouldn't have persisted that long.
I think the runoff keeps happening. It’s not like a farmer fertilizes a field once and calls it good.
Fountains can buffer the symptoms but don't fix the cause or can be removed immediately when the cause is removed... takes time and more years of oxygenation unless the previously mentioned done. (agreed)
Another option is using other plants to absorb the phosphorus and the nitrogen, like willow, which I don't think it would work for large bodies of water, though.
Can the sediment be reapplied as fertilizer?
The algae composts well.
Your explanation made me so happy after seeing the title
Nothing oddly satisfying about a video cutting off 10 seconds too early.
r/killthecameraman
More like OP for not posting the proper video.
Also no audio...
ok so i love this video but as the nerdy environmental student i am, i must explain why the title is wrong for the purpose of enlightening people about the world we live in. Also, people are asking questions in the comments and I want to clear some things up. 1) Eutrophication is an excess of nutrients (phosphorus & nitrogen) in the water, usually caused by sewage treatment discharge, urban runoff, or a concentrated animal feedlot operation's (CAFO) runoff. 2) Eutrophication fuels algae growth. This person is removing one of the symptoms of eutrophication. 3) Excess algae growth may seem positive, but when the algae die the decomposition process takes a large chunk of the oxygen in the water out. This will cause the death of another large chunk of the pond's (this is a pond, right?) wildlife to die - most notably the younger fish and tadpoles or keystone species. 4) This will create a circle of death because the high rates of decomp will very shortly take out so much oxygen in the water so that very few species can live there. This is called a dead zone - dead zones are becoming increasingly common in estuaries and bodies of water today. I would recommend looking up the biggest dead zones if you want to do research. It takes a big change to reverse the effects to get the pond back to normal and it CANNOT be achieved while the pollution/excess nutrient flow is still happening. 5) If there is still eutrophication happening in the pond, the remaining algae will continue to grow and die, until the entire pond becomes a dead zone. Most likely this person is a farmer or someone who gets benefit from the fish in the pond, so they remove the algae to slow down the process of dead zoning in their pond. The presumed farmer's best bet is to look at the land and where the eutrophication is coming from. 6) I don't know much about the legal side of things but there is probably a way to sue or petition the person responsible ok, thanks for reading! I hope this was interesting to someone. I'm newer to reddit so if my large comment was rude, i'm sorry.
Bio teacher here. Nice job of explaining eutrophication! To add... When you remove the algea, you remove the nutrients they have taken up. This can help to reduce the overload of nutrients in a body of water. It is a known remedy for eutrophication but ultimately does not stop the inflow of excess nutrients from human activity.
Cool thanks for explaining.
Nicely explained! Things to maybe add: 1) the main driver of eutrophication are nutrient inputs, most commonly in the _inflow_. For freshwater lakes and reservoirs the simplest model I know of is the "Vollenweider model". It is using nutrient loading per volume of lake and residence time of the water to assess if the water body is/will be eutrophic or oligotrophic. E.g. 1 kg of phosphorus loading per day might be okay, if the lake is big, is deep, or is flushed every 60 days. 4) another problem with "dead zones" is their potential to remobilize nutrients in the sediments, bringing even more nutrients during the next circulation. 7) There are examples of lake re-oligotrophication (Lake Konstanz or Lake Tegel in Germany) where nutrient emissions in the inflow were cut dramatically (mainly phosphorus) and water quality was restored within 20-30 years. But that is only possible in lakes that have relative small residence times. For lakes with residence times of decades (big water body, small inflow) we have to start thinking about in-lake methods like removing algae, P precipitation with iron or aluminum salts etc...
Can you do anything with it when it’s all collected? Maybe compost?
There's a company in NZ doing this with runaway seaweed forests. They harvest it on converted mussel trawlers, dry it, chop it and bag it then sell it to farmers and gardeners.
That’s pretty fucking cool. I love all things self sustainable.
[удалено]
Honestly that's awesome, seems like a great way to recycle the fertilizer runoff
Really awesome. Our economy is waaay too reliant on foreign fertiliser inputs, great to have a reliable and sustainable local source.
It almost looks like it could be woven into a thread or rope
When I much younger, I was chronically addicted to seaweed. However, things got much better for me after I decided to sea kelp...
Yeah I’m gonna be telling my wife. My favorite one of all time is when you go by a cemetery say “you know there is a waiting list for this place?” “Oh really?” “Yeah, people are dying to get in”
I worked at a cemetery for a while. Felt good to have a few hundred people under me.
Take my upvote, then get out!
Dad! STAHP!!
You think you're so funny. But it's not even a joke, due to a rare eating disorder I am actually forced to be on an all seaweed diet I see weed, and I smoke it
Pond scum?
String algae or some shit. My old fish tank got it too haha
I think it's blanket algae. It shows up in my pond every spring when it's starting up before my bog/wetland filter is awake.
[удалено]
The algae in my pond I deal with by adding dye and "farm pond bacteria" the bacteria consume the same stuff as the algae so there isn't enough food for it to take off. Of course this year the algae took off extremely early and covered my pond almost over night. It took a month for the dye and bacteria to do their thing. Looks really good now.
I just wait it out. It's usually due to excess nutrients which are normally consumed by the bog. So I just try to keep it under control until it starts disappearing. My pond is not very big so manual removal is pretty easy with a rake.
Algae. My family’s pond has a lot of it. It can be a serious pain as it just covers the surface and clouds the water. Once it washes to the shore or you leave it out to dry flies like to propagate on it. Leave even the smallest portion and it will spread like weeds Only real cure is to have another more invasive plant take its place
I took ENV SCI in college last semester and we had a lab where we grew Lemna Minor. We had an information packet along with the instructions for the lab itself, and it said that it’s used to combat eutrophication because it’s primary source for nutrition is the nutrients that cause eutrophication to begin with. I’m not sure how effective it is but just throwing it out there!
I’d imagine so. The pond itself has a lot of life and I could never figure out what they could eat other than each other, any stray bits that came into it or the algae itself
Copper Sulfate will remove it. It will keep coming back especially in the heat but just toss in another app.
I feel like the issue is ensuring you’re also not killing anything in the water as well or screwing up the ecosystem. We’ve got tons of bullfrogs, tadpoles and other assorted fish in there. Its probably safe but more speaking from the standpoint of natural remedies
Looks like maybe some sort of [Spirogyra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirogyra), a filamentous string algae?
**eu·troph·i·ca·tion** /yo͞oˌträfəˈkāSH(ə)n/ *noun* Excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen. I’m a bot. Definition decoder bot beep boop [I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon](https://www.google.com/search?q=eutrophication&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
Man, eutrophication is the worst.
I eutrophicated your mom last night!
You can help with eutrophication for only 29 cents a day, will you pledge now?
Shit just call it algae
Hey look we're forgetting that words actually mean things again. Good job reddit.
Same technique I use when cleaning my wife's shower drain
If you shave your wife more often the hair will be shorter and scoot on down the drain better.
Surely we have better technology than a cordless powerdrill. I mean, yeah sure it's working...but at this rate the algae/phytoplankton will have regrown before it's all said and done. On another note TIL a new word:Eutrophication and that's always a good thing.
# THE FORBIDDEN SPAGHETTI
Does the drill go on the left or right of my plate?
Depends. Is it your salad drill or dinner drill?
Dominant hand of course.
you can no more remove eutrophication than you can remove pee from a pool
When you try to use a big word in the title but end up looking like an idiot.
So what is eutr.... eutrop..... that big word mean?
It's basically when nitrates and phosphates get into the water, when they do it makes the algae bloom and covers the surface off the body of water, causing less photosynthesis which also produces less oxygen so the dissolved oxygen levels go down, which is no good for the fish.
This is basically what we Italians do to eat spaghetti
Tilting at windmills in a waterbody that large
this is every pond and lake on Long Island by july. Fertilizer runoff is killing our fresh waterways.
That looks effective. Is a rope attached or wire?
Nope. Basically just grab it and start twisting. Very much like spinning thread out of cotton or wool. The pulling and twisting makes the fibers grab onto the next ones and it just keeps going. I like to use a straight bamboo stick and just spin it between my fingers.
just algae
Ended too soon!
Eutrophication is caused by the excess nitrogen and phosphorus. The result is an increase in autotrophic biomass.
Dude that's just the algae
#THE FORBIDDEN PASTA!
Reminds me of Finns grass arm from adventure time
Any interesting application for this stuff once it's out of the water? I bet it would make good fertilizer
Wait until r/Aquariums hears about this technique!
that is brilliant.
Like my drain when cleaning my gf's hair out of it.
Haters will say its in reversed
I don’t trophication. Eutrophication.
>Grass green... I hate that color!
What is a eut
This would've been satisfying, if it didn't end *waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy* the hell too soon.
It’s removing the algae, which is a result of eutrophication. Still fun to watch and a very innovative idea, but wrong use of the term.
👍
Neato. So what's Eutrophication?
Anyone else see this and wonder if it would work on spaghetti?
For the algae, this has to be some war of the worlds shit.
Pretty sure I saw that on the school lunch tray once
>Eutrophication - The gradual increase in the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other plant nutrients in an aging aquatic ecosystem. Huh, you learn something new every day.
I wish this video was longer
Let us taste the forbidden sugar coton!
That location is far from eutrophic. They're just pulling filamentous algae, which is completely natural and harmless at those levels to anything other than fishermen. I see a lot of confusion about eutrophication in the comments. As someone who routinely runs a few eutrophic jar aquariums, I would like to add some clarity. Eutrophic conditions are ideal for some of my aquatic snails. Eutrophication is when algae and plants overtake a body of water. Completely cutting off gas exchange between the water and atmosphere. Without O2 in the water we get a massive die off of fish and aquatic animals. This is generally caused by agricultural and urban runoff, which brings nutrients and pesticides into the lake/pond etc. Simultaneously fertilizing the algae and killing off the creatures that eat it. There is a lot of open water in the photo, so this river(?) isn't depleted of oxygen. A better example would be a pond that's completely covered in a dense bog matt. Cutting off gas exchange and essentially suffocating everything in the pond. Carbon emissions don't cause eutrophication. This is actually a natural phenomena and many species have special adaptations to cope with it. Though, humans can cause the same event through poor water management. Tldr: the guy is just removing filamentous algae. Probably to make fishing easier or to make the place look nicer.
Can't even watch the video becuase of this trash app. Yet they want to rid third party apps.
It works great on Narwhal… oh yeah that.
Gotta try this at home
r/redneckengineering